Free Speech: Who Sets the Limits?

It appears that in spite of the President's admonition that heated political rhetoric did not cause the Tucson shooting, the left is not going to let up with their vitriol and lies directed at conservative opponents. Some Democrats in Congress are already proposing laws aimed at speech. Perhaps we should stop and consider what the real limits are. Do we really want to change our laws and become like many European countries, where there are definite limits on free speech, in spite of the fact that they call themselves democracies?

We all know that there are now certain limits on our freedom of speech. We know that you cannot yell, "Fire" in a crowded theatre. We know that you cannot threaten the life of the President of the United States. Many states have laws against making physical threats to an individual. These are reasonable limits.

First of all, the left is flat out lying about conservatives and tea parties when they try to make the connection between the angry political rhetoric and the Tucson shooting. There is no evidence for their claims, they know it, yet they still push the lie. Why? Because they want to destroy their political opposition.

But what changes, if any, should be made when it comes to our divided political discourse? I have a feeling that politicians on both sides will begin to get away from gun and battle metaphors in describing their political disagreements and elections. Sarah Palin has removed the map showing cross hairs. Perhaps, the Democrats will refrain from doing the same since they put out a similar map with bull eyes instead of cross-hairs a few years ago. Let's also remember that Obama himself recently made a crack about "if they bring a knife, we'll bring a gun." I also recall the recent campaign ad of the Democratic candidate for senator for West Virginia, when he aactually fired a rifle at a target representing the health care bill. (Where was Keith Olbermann then?)

So if politicians want to eliminate those metaphors, fine. However, there is a difference between making words and phrases objectionable and making them illegal. If you want to hear real hate speech, stop by your local university campus sometime. Here at UC-Irvine, we are treated to the annual Israel Apartheid Week. You can hear speakers calling prominent Americans like Rahm Emanuel, Rupert Murdoch, David Axelrod and others, "Zionist Jews!" You can hear a man say that "you can take a Jew out of the ghetto, but you can't take the ghetto out of the Jew." You can hear speakers describe Palestinian suicide bombers as "heroes" and martyrs". Nice.

Are those statements repugnant? Yes. Could they instigate violence? Yes. However, unless there is a direct link to a statement made by a speaker and the act itself, these statements are constitutionally protected free speech-even if hateful. I don't now, nor have I ever advocated that these speakers be dragged off to jail. 

To expand on the connection to violence, let us say a speaker in front of a crowd said that such and such a group were bad people. Free speech. If a speaker pointed at a man in the crowd and urged the crowd to thrash the man, and it happens right then and there, that is different. You have a prosecutable crime.

But more to the point. First, there is no connection established that would link Jared Loughner to the words of Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, tea parties or anything else. The man is a nut case who is listening to the voices in his own head. To continue to make that claim is irresponsible and despicable-free speech-but a blatant lie.

Finally, we have to remember that putting limits on free speech is a dangerous slope indeed. Those who want to see laws passed should ask themselves what shall be the limit and who should set the limit. If we don't watch out, someday opposition to the sitting President and Congress may become a crime.